The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Author: admin

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Former Yugoslavia (I) – 11 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the former Yugoslavia during an interview given in Brussels on Tuesday 11th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether air strikes would be necessary].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not know, that is not a decision that I can make. What we have made perfectly clear is precisely what we expect to happen. Now whether air strikes are necessary will depend upon other people, but it is clear that if it is necessary to use air strikes for these purposes then air strikes will be used.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if British forces on the ground were in danger of air strikes were started].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, emphatically not. If you look at the declaration we have made it perfectly clear as we draw up plans that it is necessary to take into account the security of the troops. That is why we have said that plans need to be finalised and drawn up. And what will be fundamental to those plans is to ensure the safety of United Nations troops, whether British, French, Spanish or Canadian.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if he was preparing the ground for withdrawal].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No,no, I am not preparing the ground for a withdrawal from Bosnia. There are very great difficulties in getting the humanitarian operation through and potentially there are very great risks for those delivering the humanitarian operation, whether civilian or whether soldiers. Now all of the troop contributors are immensely concerned about that, it is conceivable that the security situation would worsen to such an extent that the humanitarian operation could not continue, that is conceivable. Each of the Heads of Government with troops there recognises that that is conceivable. But for the moment we are seeking to see what we can do to improve the delivery of humanitarian aid.

  • Mr Major’s Press Conference at NATO Summit – 11 January 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s press conference in Brussels at the NATO Summit on Tuesday 11th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This has been only the 11th NATO summit in a period of 35 years and the first NATO summit we have had since the summit in Rome in November 1991. It was a summit I think with a very clear purpose and that purpose was to give a clear direction to the Alliance at a time of totally new challenges. Without question, I believe, the summit has been successful and it has given that new sense of direction, it has reaffirmed NATO’s core function to provide for our collective security. The United States have renewed unequivocally their commitment to Europe and their determination to leave a large number of United States troops on the continent of Europe. NATO is bent on bringing Europe together, it has launched what I believe is both a practical and an imaginative process in Partnership for Peace. It said that it would welcome: “Expansion that would reach the democratic states to our east as part of an evolutionary process”.

    We have reaffirmed at this meeting again our support for reform in Russia, we have agreed on the new concept of combined joint task forces which is a very significant change in NATO’s military organisation. It will I hope and expect improve NATO’s ability to mount peace-keeping and humanitarian operations. It will provide separable but not separate capabilities that will help meet the requirements of a European security and defence identity. We have agreed that we will intensify our efforts for non-proliferation and the tripartite agreement announced by President Clinton on Ukrainian weapons will be a tremendous boost in that respect. And this morning, after discussion last evening, we have reached agreement on important new steps to be taken in Bosnia.

    If I may just say a word about Bosnia. It is I think intolerable that UNPROFOR has recently been prevented from rotating its contingent in Srebrenica. We will be drawing up plans now to help UNPROFOR bring in a Netherlands contingent to replace the Canadians. And whilst talking of the Canadians perhaps I could say that the courage and dedication that they have shown there epitomises the very outstanding peace-keeping record that Canada has had over recent years.

    We have also agreed to examine how Tuzla airport can be opened with the intention that it should serve as a conduit for humanitarian relief. And we have also looked again at the situation in Sarajevo and are seeking an urgent improvement there. The bombardment of the town has diminished over the past few days but it has been, as you will all know, the subject of some very bitter fighting..

    After this press conference this morning I will be meeting the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, the Chairman of the Military Committee and a number of other top NATO Commanders at lunch. And the purpose of this lunch is to discuss how the summit’s decisions will be implemented on the military side and to benefit from their professional advice on Bosnia and on other security problems.

    Quite apart from the central agenda at this meeting, I have taken the opportunity to compare notes with the Heads of Government of a number of other NATO countries. I met the Turkish Prime Minister, Mrs Ciller, for the first time yesterday, we discussed Iraq and a number of other subjects. I saw the French Prime Minister and the German Chancellor yesterday afternoon and the Italian Prime Minister this morning. At the end of our discussions this morning I had a brief discussion with President Clinton about Bosnia and Northern Ireland and we discussed the agenda that we might tackle on my arrival in Washington at the end of February.

    If one looks at the declaration that we published today, one sentence of it I believe encapsulates the meeting: “The fuller integration of the countries of central and Eastern Europe and of the former Soviet Union into a Europe whole and free cannot be successful without the strong and active participation of allies on both sides of the Atlantic”.

    I believe that very strongly and to make a reality of that is going to require hard work and patience and all the countries will have a part to play. I have, for example, kept in very close touch with Boris Yeltsin during his Presidency and I hope also to be going to Moscow as well as to Washington within the next few weeks.

    I do believe that it is extremely important to build up our partnership with the democratic leaders of Russia, as well as with those of central and of Eastern Europe. They are our friends, they have founded new and democratic institutions, they have liberalised their economies. For example in Russia, 70 percent of small and medium enterprises have now been privatised and nearly 7,000 large firms. Inflation has come down quite sharply in recent months in Russia, entrepreneurs are increasingly beginning to appear and the benefits of reform are beginning to be seen quite clearly in many parts of Russia.

    Russia has a hugely important part to play in the world. Partnership between Russia and NATO can only be to the benefit of both sides and to the benefit of the international community. What we have been seeking to do at this meeting is to build a stable framework for the most profound changes in modern history.

    This summit, I believe, has made a big contribution to that objective and I think it can fairly be described as a complete success.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    QUESTION:

    Are you now more willing to consider the use of air power, either in the case of Sarajevo or in the instances of ensuring the rotation of troops and the reopening of the airport in Tuzla, have you come closer to that as President Clinton and the Secretary General said that they thought there was a greater determination in these conversations to use air power?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There is a great determination, let me take the different points that you raise. As far as Sarajevo is concerned, we agreed in August in the agreements of 2 and 9 August that in appropriate circumstances NATO would use air power there. That was the situation, we have reaffirmed the fact that that could be used. As far as Tuzla and Srebrenica are concerned, it was in fact an Anglo-French proposal that we should specifically include these objectives in the declaration and I set out a moment or so ago why. I do believe it is intolerable with a United Nations UNPROFOR force there that the Canadians and the Dutch are unable to complete their rotation, I simply do not think that is acceptable and I believe therefore that it is necessary to ensure that rotation takes place, and it is quite clear from the declaration that if it is necessary to use air power to achieve that then we would be prepared to do so.

    As far as Tuzla is concerned, there were some plans drawn up from Tuzla, they are not finalised, the plans, that is why the wording is precisely as it is in the declaration. We will ask the NATO Commanders, the UN UNPROFOR, to draw up final plans to see what is practicable to do to open Tuzla airport for humanitarian reasons. And the answer to your question is that there is a very real determination to carry out what is stated in the declaration and I believe it is a universal determination amongst all the Heads of Government who were present here this morning.

    QUESTION (Mark Leighty, BBC):

    Could you tell us whether you think that we are more likely to use force, say, in Srebrenica and Tuzla and that the British are very much less keen to use force around Sarajevo? If that is so, why are we so much more worried about shelling around Sarajevo and using air strikes there than we are about using them at Srebrenica. And what are the Canadians saying to you, they do not appear to be keen in public?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The Canadians, I have no knowledge of what Canadians allegedly may have been saying to people in private, I do know what has been said at the meetings and the Canadians have agreed to this declaration, there was no dispute about it, there were minor discussions about the clarity of the wording, I think three or four words were added in this context in paragraph 25 just to make clear that it was in the context of air strikes, and there was one other word added to make it clear that we were talking about the rotation of troops at Srebrenica. So there was no dispute about it, I do not know where these suggestions of dispute arise, but I can assure you that there was no dispute about this at our meeting last evening or in our discussions this morning.

    Of course there are concerns about it, these are not easy propositions to carry out, that is why we have got to examine the plans and make sure how they can be done. But as I indicated a moment ago, there is a determination to carry out those objectives that we have set out in this declaration and that is true whether they relate to Tuzla and Srebrenica or whether they relate to Sarajevo. Of course the nature of the operations would be different and without going into lengthy treaties of that, we have to take that into account. But it is intended that what is written in this declaration shall be carried through as and when necessary.

    QUESTION (John Palmer, Guardian):

    You call into question any suggestions that there were divisions, but only half an hour ago President Clinton told us that while he was keen to support the Anglo-French ideas on Srebrenica and on Tuzla, he had to resist pressure to substitute the wording on Srebrenica and Tuzla for the references reiterating the position on Sarajevo, he said that 3 times that he had to resist pressure to do and refuse to do so, would we be correct in assuming that the UK was one of the member states that wished that wording as a substitute. If not, where did this idea come from?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I have absolutely no idea. The United Kingdom proposal was to add the proposals on Tuzla and the proposals on Srebrenica to what was previously agreed in August and I believe in the unaccountable fashion that occasionally occurs at these great events, what was proposed to be the final declaration was circulated and many of you will have seen it in its earlier form in which there was a reiteration of the position as far as Sarajevo was concerned. The Anglo-French proposal last night was not to delete that but to add to that the proposals on Srebrenica and Tuzia and that was agreed last evening. There was never any question whatsoever in the British mind of diluting the agreements that we had reached on 2 and 9 August about Sarajevo.

    PETER ARMAND (DAILY TELEGRAPH):

    Up to now, much of the problem on the ground has been the requirement to negotiate your way through road blocks and it has led to situations where one man with a gun can stop a whole UN convoy. Do you now envision that we will force our way through these road blocks and if attacked then air strikes would be called or are you suggesting that air strikes might be called in advance of moving forward?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think it would be appropriate to go into details of that sort. Clearly, if you can negotiate your way through that is the best way. Nobody who reads this declaration can be in any doubt about out determination to carry out what is set out in the declaration. I hope that is read and I hope that is understood.

    QUESTION (IN FRENCH):

    [Not translated]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We established the London Conference some time ago because we wanted to put the process towards peace to give it a firm political backing. That was the underlying reason for establishing the London Conference and from that of course the negotiating activities on behalf of all of us by David Owen and successive partners. That has always been our position.

    One of the concerns we have had right from the outset, self-evidently a military concern, is the danger that the conflict would spread south down to Kosovo with the obvious danger then that it would widen and intensify quite deeply. I think our concerns about Kosovo have been made clear publicly and certainly clear privately to all the combatants on many occasions; they are in no doubt about how seriously we would view that sort of development.

    STEVE DOUGHTY (DAILY MAIL):

    Prime Minister, was your initiative on Srebrenica and Tusla launched in order to head off pressure in any measure from other Alliance members for more punitive or large-scale bombing in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it was not. It was not intended to be a joint Anglo-French initiative. When I met Prime Minister Balladur yesterday afternoon and we discussed it, we both had precisely the same idea about how we could deal with the particular problems of Tusla and Srebrinica so it was not something that was pre-cooked some time ago. we both discussed it yesterday, we both raised the matter again last evening. As a result of that we proposed some text, we agreed the text with the French and we placed the text in front of our partners this morning and it was agreed.

    No, it was not an attempt to divert from anything else. It was taken on its merits. Clearly, for humanitarian reasons, it is wholly desirable to have Tusla airport open and as far as Srebrenica is concerned, I simply think it makes a nonsense of the whole operation if the natural rotation of replacing Canadian troops with Dutch troops is unable to take place and therefore we have decided to take the action that we set out in the declaration.

    ADAM BOULTON (SKY NEWS):

    Prime Minister, I wonder if I could ask you how you plan to re-establish the authority of your premiership when you get back to London given that in your absence several Cabinet ministers, John Redwood, John Patten, have directly contradicted you and said that personal morality plays a part in “Back to Basics” and also given the widely reported comments of grass-roots Conservatives that they feel the Government is applying double standards to its own behaviour and the behaviour it expects of the public.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think you represent the position as I understand it at all. I have indicated quite clearly the width and depth of the programme of “Back to Basics”. People will see it in great clarity this very day for example for a central core of it, the Criminal Justice Bill, has its Second Reading in the House of Commons.

    JAMES ROBINS (BBC):

    Prime Minister, John Patten did say yesterday that he had never known a time in the past fifteen years since you and he went to the Commons for the first time when things had been so difficult. Is he right?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Times are difficult from time to time, subsequently they get easy.

    I recall having questions from you and Adam twelve months ago which were suggesting to me that the economy would never return to growth, unemployment would never fall and we would find ourselves in very great difficulties. What has happened over the last year is that unemployment has fallen by 180,000, the economy has begun quite clearly to grow, exports have been running at level levels. We have now taken in two successive budgets last year decisions that will bring down the fiscal deficit. So the prospect for this year, the prospect that will impact upon the lives of everyone in the United Kingdom, is for renewed and accelerated growth, a low level of inflation, lowish interest rates, unemployment continuing to fall, exports continuing to rise and investments continuing to rise. I think, had you asked me the question you just asked me twelve months ago and I had forecast that to you, you would have been dubious about whether it was likely to be accurate. Now, most people accept that it is accurate.

    FREDERICK BOLLARD:

    If I may bring you to NATO, Prime Minister, with a question concerning a remark you made about a partnership between NATO and Russia. That I presume you did not then envisage to be on the basis of the Partnership for Peace agreements because that is a comparatively low level agreement. Are you envisaging in fact a partnership whereby a political agreement is made with Russia about the importance of maintaining the values and the peace that we want to maintain?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Partnership for Peace certainly need not be at a low level. think there may be a misunderstanding there. It certainly need not be at a low level and it may be variable as between one country and another so certainly an invitation to Russia and for that matter Ukraine to participate in Partnership for Peace has been issued. We very much hope they will accept.

    But I think quite apart from the normal semantics of politics and diplomacy, the reality of life is that Russia is a different nation from any others in the world. Its huge military power and its worldwide significance necessarily make it so, so in a whole range of ways – with NATO, with the European Union, with the United States, with other countries in the West – it is in all our interests to develop the best possible relationship with Russia.

    One of the greatest prizes that could be handed on to the next generation and the generation after that would surely be if we were able to sufficiently support the reform process so that Russia became a genuine good neighbour, a genuine democratic country where the reformers win the argument and Russia can enter fully – as I hope to see it do – the democratic family of western nations. It is different from the others because of its size and because of its significance to all of us and I believe that is undeniable.

    SIMON WALTER (THE SUN):

    Do you agree with Conservative MPs who say your “Back to Basics” campaign is now in crisis and do politicians have any special responsibility to behave in a moral fashion?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t believe the remarks about crisis. The “Back to Basics” policy, as I have spelt out time and time again, runs right the way across the whole thread of Government activity: “Back to Basics” in economics: I set out the changes that there now are in our economic prospects; in terms of law and order, the Criminal Justice Bill, the most wide-ranging Criminal Justice Bill, essentially based on the principle of “Back to Basics”; the changes we are proposing in education, the changes we have introduced and those we are proposing to introduce absolutely fundamental to “Back to Basics”; the changes we made for example recently in adoption law, throwing away rather silly old-fashioned theories that children should not be adopted if the adopting parents were of a different race – absurd, old-fashioned theories that really need to be thrown away if you get back to good basic, solid common sense.

    I will give you another illustration: many of the fashionable thoughts of previous decades with hindsight have turned out to be wrong. It was a mistake to put so many people in tower blocks in the middle of the inner cities; it has produced very dramatic social problems. We are reversing that. We are not building any more tower blocks. Where we can, we are replacing those that exist and trying to produce communities that have a better community feel about them. Again back to basics.

    All those are part of a very wide-ranging “Back to Basics” campaign and one that I believe, despite the furore that appears from time to time as people dance on the head of a particular pin, is something that appeals to the basic instincts of the overwhelming majority of people in the United Kingdom so we will pursue this programme. We will pursue it because it is right, we will pursue it because it is necessary and I believe as we go through the next few weeks and months and people see the real substance of the programme, what it is about for themselves and their lives and what it is expected to mean, then I think the very warm initial reception that it had will be maintained in the future.

    QUESTION:

    Does it have a moral dimension at all?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think there is a distinction to be drawn. Of course, it is about good standards and good values, of course it is about that. What it is not is a witch-hunt against individual transgressions but of course we want good standards and good values right the way across not just the public service but elsewhere but it is not our job as politicians to preach about that. We need to deal with the problems that arise where there are difficulties, that is clearly the responsibility of politicians. We are not in preaching mode, we do want to see high values but I am not in the business of individual witch-hunts for individual transgressions.

    RAY MOSELY (CHICAGO TRIBUNE):

    Prime Minister, your Government has expressed concern in the past about the threat to British troops if there are air strikes in Bosnia. Do you not have those same concerns if Srebrenica is subjected to air strikes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is why, if you look at the wording of the declaration, we make it clear that we have to draw up plans. Those plans will need to take account of the safety of the troops. That is one of the paramount concerns. That is not a point of difference between anyone there this morning. It is self-evident that whatever is done needs to take primary account of the security of the United Nation troops be they British, Canadian, Spanish, French, who happen to be there. That will be an absolutely central part of the plans that will be determined.

    RAY MOSELEY:

    Does that mean you would want to see your troops withdrawn before air strikes take place?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, it doesn’t necessarily mean that.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 11 January 1994

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Genetic Testing

    Mr. Dalyell : To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements Her Majesty’s Government are making to respond to the report under the chairmanship of Professor Dame June Lloyd of the Nuffield council of bioethics relating to genetic testing ; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The Government welcome this authoritative and timely report. We will consider the conclusions and recommendations of the report and study the reaction of public and professional interests before deciding whether action by the Government is needed.

     

    Ministers

    Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about ministerial responsibility and the accountability of Ministers for decisions taken by the Department.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    Guidance on ministerial responsibility and accountability is provided at paragraph 27 of “Questions of Procedure for Ministers”, a copy of which is in the Library.

    Mr. Grocott : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list each Minister who has left his Administration, with the reason for their departure in each case.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The names of resigning Ministers, and the reasons for their resigning, have been announced on each occasion.

     

    Documents

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to advise all Ministers that marginal notes on documents circulated between themselves or departmental officials always are made directly on to the documents and not on detachable notes.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans to issue such advice.

     

    Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister how many representations he has received in the form of coupons from the advertisement placed by the citizens of Hiroshima, Japan, in The Times of 20 December, setting out opposition to the THORP reprocessing plant at Sellafield.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received numerous representations.

     

    EC Directives

    Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) of 17 December 1993, Official Report, column 959, how the list of 17 EC directives which the European Council agreed should be repealed or withdrawn has been made available to the general public.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The Commission’s report on subsidiarity, which includes the annex to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in his answer of 17 December to my hon. Friend, the Member for Southend, East, has been published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. As is the practice for all official Community publications, it is available to the general public through HMSO.

     

    Police and Magistrates

    Mr. Barry Jones : To ask the Prime Minister what amount of new money is proposed to support the reformed (a) magistrates courts system and (b) the police authorities ; and if he will make a statement.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    The costs of establishing the new administrative structure for the magistrates courts service will depend on local management decisions, but during the one to two year implementation period costs in the region of £5 million a year may be incurred. The Government have reflected the additional costs of the reforms in determining future grant provision for the service.

    As regards the police, the overall effect of the changes in the Police and Magistrates’ Courts Bill on ongoing expenditure from the Consolidated Fund and by local government will be broadly neutral. It is expected that additional expenditure by police forces on financial and personnel management will be offset by increases in efficiency.

    Some start-up costs are expected. These will arise from a period of parallel operation by the current police authorities and their successors to be established by the Bill. The new authorities will incur some costs for their own purposes and some for the purposes of the police force for whose maintenance they will become responsible from April 1995. The force may need to recruit and train new staff in areas such as personnel or finance or to purchase computer hardware. Taken together, the start-up costs of the reforms for police authorities and police forces are not expected to exceed £21 million. They will be met by central Government grant.

     

    Press Officers

    Mr. Matthew Taylor : To ask the Prime Minister how many press officers his Office has employed in each year since 1983.

    Mr. Newton [holding answer 17 December 1993] : I have been asked to reply.

    Detailed figures were not recorded separately prior to 1987-88. From then onwards the complement remained at six, until 1 April 1992, when it was increased to seven to enable the press office to continue to respond effectively to the growing number of press inquiries.

  • PMQT – 11 January 1994

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 11th January 1994. Tony Newton responded on behalf of John Major.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Denham : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton) : I have been asked to reply.

    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the NATO summit in Brussels.

    Mr. Denham : Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a certain amount of confusion about the precise nature of the “back to basics” policy? Will he confirm that honesty is one of the “back to basics” values? If it is, why did the Conservatives promise at the last general election not to put up tax and then impose £10 per family per week?

    Mr. Newton : Our concern as a Government is with good standards in education, strengthening the fight against crime and, not least, ensuring a sound economic foundation on which all other objectives must rest. Our policy on taxation and in all economic matters is directed towards that end and it is manifestly bringing about the growth that people want to see.

    Dr. Michael Clark : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the barometers of the British economy is the housing industry? Does he therefore share my satisfaction– [Interruption.]

    Madam Speaker : Order. It is good to start the new year in good humour, but I should like to hear the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark).

    Dr. Michael Clarke : Does my right hon. Friend therefore share my satisfaction with the figures revealed yesterday, which show that private sector housing starts are on the increase?

    Mr. Newton : I do indeed share my hon. Friend’s pleasure in those figures. Private sector housing starts increased significantly in November, as in the previous month. Indeed, in November they were the highest since October 1989, and 42 per cent. higher than a year earlier. That is very good news and it shows the benefits of the policies to which I referred a few moments ago.

    Mr. John Smith : Is it not now abundantly clear that “back to basics”, a slogan which was devised to get the Prime Minister through the Tory party conference, has spectacularly backfired on a Government who are now in hopeless confusion and disarray about what it means, particularly when applied to themselves?

    Mr. Newton : I have already made it clear, in answer to the first question asked of me this afternoon, that our concern is with raising standards in education, strengthening the fight against crime and, above all, strengthening the British economy. Those are objectives which the British people support and want to see achieved, and they know that they would not get them from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that the problem is that the current definitions are so markedly different from the moralistic speeches of Minister after Minister at the Tory party conference? Does he recollect the Home Secretary saying to the conference that the distinction between right and wrong had to be sharpened instead of blurred? Why is it all so different now?

    Mr. Newton : My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right to make that point in the context of the fight against crime, which the House will debate later today. The objectives of what the Government are seeking to bring about remain and will remain as I have stated them and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set them out at that conference.

    Mr. John Smith : Does the right hon. Gentleman not yet appreciate that what the British people dislike intensely is the hypocrisy of double standards which “back to basics” has now become? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us and the public why there should be one set of rules for the the people and another set of rules for Ministers and Tory Members of Parliament?

    Mr. Newton : What I think that the British people most dislike is the hypocrisy of a party which talks like that and then opposes every move to raise educational standards and every move to fight crime, and which pursues policies which could only damage Britain’s economy.

    Mr. Matthew Banks : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Britain continues to maintain a flexible and responsive approach to military action in Bosnia? Does he agree that, until recently, Britain has been entirely right to resist premature calls for air strikes in the region, which would have led to extreme danger for our troops on the ground who were sent there to police a United Nations ceasefire, not to take part in guerrilla warfare?

    Mr. Newton : I can say that, after some very fruitful meetings in Brussels this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in speaking there, has made it clear that we will be drawing up plans to help UNPROFOR to bring in a Netherlands contingent to replace the Canadians in Srebrenica and has also agreed to examine how Tuzla airport can be opened, with the intention that it should serve as a conduit for humanitarian relief. My right hon. Friend has also made it clear that if it is necessary to use air power to achieve those objectives, we would be willing to do so.

     

    Q2. Mr. Connarty : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Connarty : Does the Leader of the House now think that morality is very important also in public life? Is he aware that, in the Forth valley enterprise area, thanks to the diligent investigation by the local paper, The Falkirk Herald, it has been revealed that £2 million in grants from the enterprise board has gone to people who sit on the board? In fact, just recently, the secretary of the board resigned after an investigation by Scottish Television. There are allegations of training grants to companies that had no trainees and allegations of the register of companies’ interests being falsified, and there is still £50,000 missing. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that appointees who have a self interest to pursue will not look after the public interest and that running the country by quangos, as the Government have tried to do, will lead to corruption inevitably?

    Mr. Newton : In view of some of the things that have emerged about, for example, Labour local authorities, I think that that is a curious charge for the hon. Gentleman to make, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will examine anything that needs to be examined in the light of that or any other event of that kind.

    Mr. Waterson : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the Dun and Bradstreet report, which shows increased business confidence in trading conditions at the moment? Does he agree that that augurs well for the future of the British economy in the next 12 months?

    Mr. Newton : I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The survey published today shows that United Kingdom businesses are more confident about trading conditions in the current quarter, with well over half forecasting higher profits and nearly a third expecting to take on more staff. That shows the benefits of the policy of low interest rates and low inflation which the Government have successfully been pursuing.

     

    Q3. Mr. Eric Clarke : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Clarke : I wish you, Madam Speaker, and the rest of the House, a happy new year. Will the Leader of the House make it a happy new year for the disabled miners who are at home and worried because of the lack of guarantees for the future of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, a worthwhile organisation which looks after them and their families? If the Leader of the House wants a moral crusade, I would name that one.

    Mr. Newton : First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes for the new year, which I much appreciate. With regard to the substantive thrust of his question, he will of course have an opportunity before long to raise that and any other point during discussions on the Coal Industry Bill. I will of course draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

    Mr. Nicholls : Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the remarks of Tom Donnett, a Liberal county councillor in Somerset, who has described villagers whose views he disapproves of as being no better than yids, nignogs, eyeties and Pakis? Does not my right hon. Friend find a curious distinction that the Liberal Democrat party leader in his appearances in the House adopts a tone of self-righteous pomposity while harbouring people within his party whose views would not be tolerated in the National Front?

    Mr. Newton : In line with the good wishes for the new year, I had better say that my hon. Friend might say that, but I cannot possibly comment. I understand that the remarks have been referred to the Commission for Racial Equality. Perhaps we shall see not only what the commission has to say, but in due course what the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his party have to say.

     

    Q4. Ms Hoey : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Ms Hoey : Will the Leader of the House urge the Prime Minister, in what will obviously be a review of his “back to basics” policy, to consider a “back to basics” in foreign policy? Does he agree that part of that should be a basic understanding that aggression should not be rewarded? Does he further agree that it is crucial that the siege of Sarajevo be lifted and that the Government call for immediate air strikes to take out the artillery surrounding that city?

    Mr. Newton : Without for one moment accepting the suggestion in the first half of the hon. Lady’s question, I think that the need with these policies is to get on and ensure that they are effective, which is what we seek to do. On the second part, with reference to Bosnia–the hon. Lady mentioned particularly Sarajevo–I referred earlier to another couple of issues : the position at Srebrenica and the position at the airport at Tuzla. I think that the hon. Lady would be well advised to read full reports of the understandings that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reached with our allies in Brussels today about further action in those areas.

    Mr. Dickens : Concentrating still on important matters, does my right hon. Friend welcome the improvement in the balance of trade figures announced yesterday?

    Mr. Newton rose– [Hon. Members :– “Come on.”] I was caught out by my hon. Friend’s unaccustomed brevity, but I am grateful both for his brevity and for the good point that he raised. I am delighted to see the improvement in the balance of trade of something like £500 million in October, with exports outside the European Community up by some 12 per cent. on a year ago. It is further convincing evidence of the success of our policies. I look forward, although without much expectation, to the Opposition congratulating not only British industry and British workers but the Government on the conditions that have helped to bring that about.

     

    Q5. Mr. Skinner : To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 11 January.

    Mr. Newton : I have been asked to reply.

    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Skinner : Will the Government be demanding of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that he repay the £50,000 that he got out of his housing fiddle on the second council house in Westminster? How can the Government justify bailing out the firm owned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) at £200,000 when thousands of firms in Britain have gone to the wall and millions of people have been made redundant? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman demand that the hon. Member for City of Chester foots the bill himself?

    Mr. Newton : I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) has said in recent days. I imagine that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) appreciates that the position of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) is exactly the same as that which would arise with any other company which does not succeed. Neither the company nor my hon. Friend has been treated differently from any other company or any other individual in similar circumstances.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Former Yugoslavia (II) – 11 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the former Yugoslavia during an interview given in Brussels on Tuesday 11th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether the threat of air strikes was useful as it had been used before].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think NATO have made threats in that sense. NATO has set out its policy in certain circumstances, they did that last August. What has happened today is we have set out two specific areas where we think action is needed: one is in Srebrenica where it is necessary to get the Canadian United Nations contingent out and the Dutch contingent in, and secondly, of course, at Tusla airport where it is very desirable to open the airport to increase the flow of humanitarian aid.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if there was now a mandate].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    There are a number of people who have to agree with that. It isn’t just a question of snapping your fingers and then proceeding. There has to be a proper plan drawn up, it has to be agreed by a series of people, in some cases by the United Nations Secretary-General but it is agreed that we will prepare plans for those contingencies.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if this was likely to be the situation].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is not for me to determine. We have made it clear that if necessary it will happen and if necessary it may involve the use of air strikes.

  • Mr Major’s NATO Summit Statement – 10 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s statement at the NATO Summit on 10th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO’s fundamental role

    NATO has been the cornerstone of post-war Europe’s security. It has been by far the most successful collective security organisation in history.

    Now is not the time to weaken the cornerstone.

    But we cannot take it for granted. Keeping our security insurance up to date requires a continuing commitment from all of us.

    US Commitment to Europe

    President Clinton said yesterday that the core of American security remained with Europe.

    I warmly welcome the renewed commitment by the United States.

    NATO has been vital to the transatlantic relationship; and the American contribution continues to be vital to NATO.

    The need for change

    NATO must adapt to meet new challenges, while preserving its effectiveness.

    The main challenges are clear:

    – what relationships to develop with the new democracies to our East;

    – how to organise ourselves politically and militarily, to engage in new missions to promote and restore peace;

    – how to ensure that NATO adjusts to the emerging security and defence identity of the European Union.

    Enlargement\Russia\partnership for peace

    It must be our objective to consolidate democracy in all of the countries to the east now embracing it; to develop a closer partnership with them; and to help to enhance their security and stability.

    These countries are not all alike, and NATO’s relationships with them will differ. Partnership for Peace recognises that. It is, rightly, an evolutionary and transitional process without a predetermined end result.

    We must be clear about a number of points:

    The process could clearly lead to the admission of new members. The door is open.

    We cannot yet define who will be able to meet the obligations of membership, or when.

    Those who wish to join have much work to do, with our assistance, to prepare themselves.

    The Poles, Czechs and Hungarians are European peoples with fast-developing democracies and a strong claim to membership.

    There must be no new dividing line in Europe; no recreation of opposing blocs.

    We must show that NATO is a genuine partner for a democratic Russia, not an opponent. It is therefore essential for NATO to build a closer relationship with Russia, which acknowledges that country’s special status.

    Partnership for Peace will provide real and practical benefits to NATO and to Partners; through a non-discriminatory, gradual and incremental approach, with the prospect of eventual membership for some.

    Equipping NATO for new tasks\Combined Joint Task Forces\European Defence identity

    NATO itself needs further change to ensure we are better prepared and equipped for new missions such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian and sanctions operations.

    Combined Joint Task Forces are a sensible and imaginative concept, to supplement but not to replace the Integrated Military Structure.

    The UK will play a leading role in the Combined Joint Task Force in the NATO HQ at AFNORWEST in High Wycombe. We also have a strong contribution to make in AFCENT in Germany.

    These more flexible structures will also help NATO to be more responsive to the European Defence aspirations. Europe cannot afford and does not want separate forces, separate HQs or separate command and control structures.

    I support the idea of a further review of NATO’s military structures designed to promote adaptation to new missions and to facilitate a more specific European profile within the Alliance.

    Counter-proliferation

    I support the US approach on counter-proliferation. The defence-related aspects should continue to be seen in wider political context of non-proliferation policy. I am glad that NATO’s work can be carried forward by all Sixteen Allies, including France.

    Former Yugoslavia

    NATO has so far done efficiently what it has been asked to do: support for the United Nations, sanctions enforcement in the Adriatic, air operations in support of UNPROFOR and the no-fly zone, and planning for a peace implementation operation.

    As Bosnia struggles through another desperate winter of war, we face very serious questions which cannot be resolved today.

    On the one hand, the parties purport to be negotiating seriously while, on the other, they are bent on prosecuting the war, with UN humanitarian forces from my own and other countries operating with difficulty between them.

    We shall remain in close touch with our partners in UNPROFOR and NATO. We shall consider with them what realistic help we can continue to give to keep Bosnians alive and encourage the peace process.

    Conclusion

    Europe is still in flux following the end of the Soviet Union and of the cold war. A NATO which continues to change rapidly and relevantly will remain central to the Euro-Atlantic cause. Partnership for Peace, combined Joint Task Forces, the new focus on counter-proliferation, are important steps along the way. Follow up work will have full UK support. We were at the forefront of NATO’s creation and will be equally active in its transformation.

  • Mr Major’s Doorstep Interview in Brussels – 10 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s doorstep interview in Brussels on 10th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    Prime Minister, what was your reaction to President Clinton’s speech yesterday?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I thought it was an absolutely excellent speech yesterday in every way, I think it set out many of the objectives of NATO. For the past 40 years NATO has essentially been the rock upon which our security has been based, over the next couple of days I think we are going to reaffirm the role of NATO, up-date it and make sure our insurance policy is in good shape.

    QUESTION:

    Some read alarming federalism into it, support for Jacques Delors’s ideas for a European super state?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I saw that but I think they did not read the speech very carefully. If you read the speech you will see that what President Clinton was talking about was integration of all Europe, he was talking about the relationship between Western Europe and Eastern Europe, not the tightly knit integration within the European Union itself. Some interpreted it that way I know, but they were mistaken.

    QUESTION:

    Is this summit going to do more about ending the conflict in Bosnia?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I am sure that is a matter that is going to be on our minds, particularly amongst those of us who have large numbers of troops there, I am sure it will come up during the summit and perhaps particularly over dinner this evening.

    QUESTION:

    Will there be a stronger line on Bosnia, there has been talk of possible bombing or new commitments?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    NATO has had a policy for some time that when the circumstances are appropriate, and we set that out some months ago, that we would go ahead with air strikes, that was the position and that remains the position today.

    QUESTION:

    What is Partnership for Peace?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think partnership for peace is part of an evolving development of NATO, there is clearly a desire amongst many of the central and East European nations to have a closer role with NATO, partnership for peace offers that on an evolutionary basis, it will be a very wide invitation extended to the central and East European nations, to Russia, to Ukraine, I very much hope they will take it up.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on the Economy – 9 January 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on the economy during an interview given in London on Sunday 9th January 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if inflation had been beaten].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I do not think you can ever say inflation is beaten, I certainly would not say that. But if you look over the last 30 or 40 years, time and time again we have had a wave of inflation leading to stop/go policies and great damage to the British economy. What concerned me first and foremost, not just when I became Prime Minister but from the moment I became Chancellor, hence in many ways my enthusiasm for the Exchange Rate Mechanism at the time, was the need to get inflation down to the same level or lower than our principal international competitors and then make sure we can keep it there.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked if inflation could be kept in the 1%-4% band for the rest of the Parliament].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    That is certainly our expectation and our ambition. One can never be certain because a certain element of inflationary impulse comes from abroad, but it will certainly be our intentions to keep it within those parameters. Provided we can do that we have the most solid and secure base for not just medium but long term sustainable growth both in employment in prosperity over the years immediately ahead and that I think is the central issue.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked for his economic predictions for the year ahead].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I made a number of predictions last year, one was unemployment, I said that it would fall and it did; I said that we would get a significant amount of growth, it looks as though we have got growth; I said that exports would increase, they have increased; and I said we would carry our legislation, which we did do. So I think last year’s predictions worked out, upon reflection, rather well. This year I would certainly expect the trend in unemployment to go down, that does not mean there will not be a single month when it goes not go up, I cannot say that, but I think across the year there is no doubt that the trend in unemployment is now downwards, so certainly I expect that, I am reluctant to put a figure on it, but I think there will be quite a reduction in unemployment in the next twelve months. We will certainly see more growth, I think we will see a continuing growth in exports and we will see quite a reduction in the fiscal deficit. So I think many of our prospects are looking sharply better at the beginning of 1994 than they were at the beginning 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked whether he thought the economy would grow by 3% in the year ahead].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think it will be in the 2.5 – 3 percent bracket, it is a fairly inexact science forecasting, there are too many intangibles, but it will be in that sort of bracket and I would certainly expect growth at that level or a little higher the year after.

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Crimestoppers Lunch – 7 January 1994

    Below is the Conservative Central Office Press Release following John Major’s speech to the Crimestoppers Lunch on Friday 7th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Press Release

    The Prime Minister today re-iterated the Government’s commitment to the fight against crime and spoke of the part everyone can play in aiding the police.

    The Prime Minister said:

    “The fight against crime lies at the heart both of our Back to Basics campaign and our legislative programme. Next Tuesday we will have the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill. It will:

    – crack down on juvenile offenders;

    – curb the abuse of the right of silence;

    – curb the abuse of bail;

    – give new powers to the police to take samples for DNA testing;

    – bring in new powers to help the police in the fight against terrorism;

    – crack down on squatters, ravers and new age travellers;

    – tighten the law against child pornography

    I am sure that it will have the support of all those in the country who want to step up the fight against crime – and I hope it has the support of all political parties in the House of Commons.

    I believe the climate is changing – changing against crime. People have had enough of some people seeming to put the criminal first and the victim second. They have had enough of airy-fairy theories. And I think they have probably had enough of some young offenders being sent around the world at the taxpayers’ expense.

    It flies in the face of commonsense that you cut crime by appearing to reward those who have committed criminal acts. I want to see punishments fitting the crime – and we need to have greater consistency across the country. That is why Michael Howard has brought forward his review of national standards of community sentences – and you can expect to see tougher guidelines emerging when those are published later this year. Just one more step in our Back to Basics campaign – one more notch upwards of the relentless pressure that we are bringing to bear against criminals and crime.

    People are coming increasingly to realise that this is a job for all of us – and not just something that we should leave the police to cope with on their own. We can help in our own homes by bringing our children up to know the difference between right and wrong. In our schools by tightening up on discipline and cracking down on truancy. And there are many ways in which individual citizens can help – as Specials, as Parish Constables, in a Neighbourhood Watch Scheme or simply by getting involved with initiatives like Crimestoppers.

    By working together we can fight crime. I simply refuse to accept that there is nothing that can be done about crime. That there is some iron law which says that it will always go up. That all we can do is shake our heads and blame it on society. The fact is that initiatives like Crimestoppers show that we can do something. Crimestoppers has meant that more crimes have been cleared up. That more criminals have been arrested. That more stolen property has been recovered. That is all good, solid progress in the crusade against crime. And it shows that the defeatists, the shoulder-shruggers are wrong.”

  • Mr Major’s Speech at Opening of D-Day Celebrations – 6 January 1994

    Below is Mr Major’s speech at the opening of D-Day Celebrations in London on Thursday 6th January 1994.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I don’t think, frankly, that the film could have put it very much more clearly. D-Day fifty years ago began the deciding battle for the future of Europe. The veterans present today – and I very warmly welcome them – were among the over 130,000 who took part in the invasion, the largest amphibious attack in history and the greatest combined land, sea and air operation of the whole of the Second World War and they did it – and you saw a glimpse of it from the film – in pretty dreadful conditions with extraordinary courage and with extraordinary determination. If they had lost, our world today would be immeasurably different but they didn’t and their success turned the D-Day landings into one of the great events of history.

    We want to mark that achievement and to do so together with France and other countries which took part in the D-Day landings we intend to hold a massive programme of commemorative events both here and in Normandy between the 4th and 6th June this year.

    Those events are going to involve heads of state or government from most of the allied nations plus many thousands of veterans of the D-Day landings together of course with service widows. Our commemorations in that period will remember the sacrifice made by some 10,000 British, Canadian and American troops who were either killed or wounded on D-Day. By September, the Allied casualties were to rise to 210,000 of which 37,000 were dead but by then, of course, most of France had been liberated and Operation Overlord was well on its way towards the restoration of peace right across Europe. The events that we are planning naturally will give pride of place to the men who suffered both the fear and the fire of that very remarkable day.

    The final order to launch the invasion was issued by General Eisenhower at Southwick House outside Portsmouth. On the 4 June, therefore, at Southwick House we will entertain 1,000 veterans of the D-Day landings and we hope the guest of honour on that occasion will be Her Majesty the Queen Mother.

    Also on 4 June, Her Majesty the Queen will hold a dinner in the Portsmouth Guildhall for 500 people, including the heads of state or government of those countries that took part in the operation. Other guests will include members of the Armed Forces, the civilian services, voluntary organisations and those who designed and built the specialist equipment such as the Mulberry Harbours which you have just seen in the film a few moments ago.

    On the morning of 5 June, there will be an open-air commemorative service in Plymouth which will be open to all. That afternoon, a flotilla of ships will cross the Channel; it will be led by Her Majesty the Queen and heads of state or government from participating nations on board the royal yacht escorted by an armada of small craft. During the crossing, the flotilla will be overflown by an international fly-past including aircraft which took part either in the Battle of Britain or supported the D-Day landings from the air. Later that afternoon, approximately 1,000 paratroops, including servicemen from Canada, France and Poland, will parachute into the area of the Pegasus Bridge in Normandy.

    On 6 June, there will be a national service of commemoration in the British cemeteries in Normandy. This will be followed by a march-past of veterans in Arramanche.

    These events have been coordinated with the French government who are organising an international ceremony at Omaha Beach on 6 June and as in 1944, cooperation and joint planning will be the key to success. We therefore established close links and coordination with all the nations intending to commemorate D-Day in Normandy.

    It is at the moment a little too early for us to have a full list of all those participating but we are expecting President Clinton, Prime Minister Chretien and of course President Mitterrand who will be hosting the events on French soil, to take part in many of the events and other heads of state or government, including President Walesa and King Harold of Norway will also be present.

    I would like to emphasise to you that the events I have just spelt out are merely illustrative of many others that are being organised to commemorate the D-Day landings. During them, we will not forget the effort and the sacrifice of men and women throughout the forces, throughout industry and throughout our nation who contributed to that remarkable military success.

    The 50th anniversary of D-Day is a huge national event and we intend that it should be celebrated on a national scale. Many towns and villages right across the United Kingdom are already organising their own commemorative events. We expect very many more will do so. Events are already planned in all parts of the United Kingdom and we will be announcing further events in the months to come.

    Everyone, of course, under fifty will have no direct memory of these great events but it is to the success of D-Day that they owe the peace, the security and the freedom that we have enjoyed since 1945 and which all of us take for granted so we hope and we intend to stir the imagination of everyone at what was done.

    In our film a few moments ago, you heard General Montgomery say: “In the better times that lie ahead, men will speak with pride of our doings!” Next June, fifty years on, we will redeem that promise and do exactly that.

    I would now like to invite Robert Cranbourne to elaborate on some of the arrangements and then in a few moments Field Marshall Lord Bramall will speak on the involvement of the veterans.

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    Prime Minister, you have explained why D-Day matters and why we should commemorate the events of June 1944, you outlined the programme of national commemorative events that will take place in June later this year. You asked me, Prime Minister, last year to take overall responsibility for planning the commemoration and to bring our plans to fruition. I hope and believe that on 7 June next the nation will be able to say D-Day has been properly remembered and those that fought, whether they died or survived, have received the honour that is their due. I suspect, Prime Minister, unless the nation can say that you will be looking for my resignation – quite right too!

    Ladies and Gentlemen, there is still a great deal to be done. We will have to rely on the help and cooperation of many organisations to make sure that we remember this great event of fifty years ago in the way that it should be and I would like to give you an instance of the sort of difficulties that we will face and overcome and how other organisations can help us do that.

    The Royal British Legion, the Royal Naval Association, the RAF Association have kindly agreed to act as agents for our ticketing organisation, to help us ensure that there is a fair representation of veterans particularly attending all the national events, but of course space is a difficulty. It seems difficult to believe this but Normandy, particularly that particular piece of coast, is going to be extremely crowded on the 5th and 6th of June this year and of course the events at the Guildhall in Portsmouth and at Southwick House will only accommodate a limited number of veterans. I think this makes the drumhead service on Southsea Common at Portsmouth all the more important. It will be open to all but of course particularly to veterans of Normandy who have not managed to book a ticket for other events and there will be a special veterans centre there to try and make sure that their needs are looked after as well as possible.

    There will also be, as you yourself have said, Prime Minister, a very large number of other events nationwide, not the official national events. They are growing every day and we produce a large wadge of paper every week which grows as people use their own initiative to try and make their contribution to these national events. We would encourage people to continue with this and we will do whatever we can to cooperate to make your own local events as successful as we can.

    Prime Minister, I have been very lucky in my team who so far have done a magnificent job. However, in order to make this event a truly national affair, we shall above all be relying on the media – the press, television and the radio. We will be looking to you to unite the nation and do honour to the veterans as they deserve.

    I would like to say how extraordinarily grateful I am to all of you so far who have been prodigal in your suggestions and in the cooperative and constructive way in which you have approached this very substantial project. I look forward very much to your suggestions and your help over the coming months and particularly on the 5th and 6th of June this year. I hope you will be able to use the D-Day team’s press office as fully as possible and that if you have beefs or worries that you will come to us so that we can address them because one thing is absolutely certain, we will not be able to think of everything and with your help we will try and make sure as little falls between the cracks as possible.

    If I may, Prime Minister, I would now like to hand over to one of my advisory team. Field Marshall Lord Bramall is our host here today and more important perhaps, he landed in Normandy himself in 1944. He has been a most valuable link with the veterans and their organisations in our planning so far, helping us to make sure that we get it right as far as they are concerned.

    FIELD MARSHALL LORD BRAMALL:

    I would just like to say that I think that the veterans, that is those of us who in one way or another fifty years ago took part in this great enterprise which, as the Prime Minister said earlier, forged the course of history, will feel I believe that all the events planned are very fitting ones to commemorate this special anniversary.

    The emphasis, rightly I think, starts in the south of England – Hampshire, Portsmouth, Southampton, the Solent – where although the whole country of course was involved in some way, so much of the vital planning and mounting of Operation Overlord took place and which was of course the launching pad for the great armada of ships which was to cross the Channel and I remember myself I sailed in a United States-manned tank landing craft from what is now the present Southampton ferry terminal to the Isle of Wight.

    Seven of the events, including the drumhead service of commemoration and remembrance on Southsea Common, do appropriately symbolise those build-up phases, the actual embarkation and generally I think the feeling of great adventure which we all felt with a mixture of apprehension and excitement as the committed forces set sail across the Channel and headed for Normandy. In 1994, of course, fifty years afterwards, this armada will be represented by an international flotilla with the royal yacht and the Sovereign.

    Then, the focus – and I think we would feel again appropriately – turns to Normandy itself where so many men fought and so many died to seize and secure the vital bridgehead and this, as you have heard, will be graphically and very movingly recalled first by twelve hours before the actual time a parachute drop by 1,000 British, Canadian, French and Polish parachutists onto the general area of the Pegasus Bridge across the Caen Canal and then by commemorative services in all the various war cemeteries where stand the graves of tens of thousands of British, Canadian, American and Allied forces who died on that day and in the subsequent very bloody battles of Normandy which lasted another three months.

    Finally, Ladies and Gentlemen, there will be that proud march-past of representative Normandy veterans at Arramanche, Gold Beach, where 50th Tyne & Tees Division landed and where the Mulberry Harbour was installed, as you saw in the film and they will be watched over by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as indeed they were on that longest day.

    I do believe that these events really will stir the hearts, swell the pride and most particularly remember the fallen not only in respect of the veterans who I think will be more than satisfied particularly when you take all the other events of commemoration which the Minister has mentioned which will take place all over the country but also for all the people throughout the land who watch and listen through the various wide range of the media and so I believe the nation will be remembering and expressing its gratitude and thanks to all those who helped to make Operation Overlord possible and will be doing it in a truly fitting and proud manner.

     

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS:

    MARK LAITY (BBC RADIO):

    Prime Minister, will there be any official German presence and how would you respond to unofficial Germans turning up if they so desire?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This is essentially an occasion for the wartime Allies. I discussed this matter previously with Chancellor Kohl and he said that he wouldn’t be attending those commemorations. What will be the case in future is that Germany will be invited to play a full part in the continuous programme of commemorative events leading to those marking the end of the Second World War but I do not envisage an involvement in these particular celebrations. I am not anticipating an unofficial presence of Germans.

    QUESTION:

    This is largely to Lord Bramall, there has been considerable correspondence in I think both the “Times” and the “Telegraph” from various veterans and the argument seems rather generously split. Some veterans are saying that the Germans did fight very gallantly and died gallantly and they were a proper foe and were recognised as such by many veterans; others are very strict and say they do not want any representation official or otherwise. What are your personal feelings, Lord Bramall, as a veteran yourself, of any unofficial German representation because I feel sure many would want to turn up to mark that day themselves?

    LORD BRAMALL:

    I think the general question has been answered by the Prime Minister. I have no feeling against the Germans but this is a rather special thing. Remember, this was an invasion of an occupied country and you have got to take very much into consideration the feelings of the French in this matter and I think that, as the Prime Minister said, the proper time to get together and forget war and just look to the future is the ending of world War II in the following year, that is when I hope the Germans will play a very large part.

    I don’t think this comes from the veterans themselves; I think if they saw a German there they wouldn’t take offence but I think because the landing was in an occupied country it makes it slightly different.

    QUESTION (THE INDEPENDENT):

    I notice that Polish servicemen will be taking part in the drop on Pegasus Bridge. Until recently, of course, we would have expected them to be on the other side. Could perhaps the Field Marshall tell us how cooperative the Polish government has been in this matter?

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    Perhaps I can argue from the specific to the general here. All the Allied governments have cooperated together in planning these events and that has been not only one of the pleasures because it leads to extremely good lunches in Paris quite apart from anything else – you weren’t supposed to hear that, Prime Minister! Sorry! It has also been one of the things that has convinced me that it is going to be a success.

    All the Allied governments who have taken part in the run-up to the commemoration so far have been extremely constructive and cooperative and that of course includes the Poles.

    IAN MENNIX (THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION):

    You kept saying “all the Allied governments”, Lord Cranbourne. Does that include the former Soviet Union?

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    No. They weren’t involved in D-Day. They didn’t provide formed bodies of troops and that is the criterion we have used. I think we have to try and draw the line somewhere. I think we could probably find people from almost every nation on earth who took part but it is the nations who provided formed bodies of troops that we have concentrated on.

    BRIAN HAMILTON (BRITISH FORCES BROADCASTING SERVICE):

    What plans do you have for war widows to attend the celebrations and secondly, fifty years on from D-Day, what will be the next big celebration?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Shall I take the first part and Lord Cranbourne will take the second?

    As far as war widows are concerned, amongst the things that we are doing – I don’t suggest that this will be exclusive but it will give you an illustration – any widow whose husband is buried in Normandy and who has not visited her husband’s grave before will be able to claim the cost of a visit under a scheme financed by the Government and apart from that, any widow will be eligible to take part in the events just like the widows of the veterans but there will be a whole range of things that widows will of course be entitled to attend and I have no doubt will wish to attend.

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    That is absolutely right, Prime Minister. Perhaps I could just underline the importance we attach to widows participating in this event. They made a tremendous sacrifice and it is important that we should pay them as much honour as the people who took part.

    As far as the next great celebration is concerned, I think it all rather depends on what you define as a “great commemoration”. There will be a series of commemorative events mirroring the events of the liberation of Europe fifty years ago. They will not by their very nature perhaps be as great as this one until we reach next year when we commemorate the end of the War. As the Prime Minister has said, we have taken the view – and I think our allies agree with us wholly – that this should be an opportunity for us really to make an act of reconciliation with all combatants and we very much look forward to all the allied nations taking part in a series of events which we are just beginning to plan and which we are not ready to talk about yet but also to make sure that our former enemies are well represented and that we can make the point that we are all in the world boat together and that the events of 1939 to 1945 are well and truly in the past.

    QUESTION:

    The flotilla of ships that will be sailing across the Channel with “Britannia” in the van, will they be warships?

    LORD CRANBOURNE:

    There will be some warships and some civilian vessels as well and they will come from a number of allied nations. We are not absolutely certain what the final composition of this flotilla will be but very broadly it will reflect [Inaudible].

    QUESTION:

    With reference to war widows, when will this information be trickling down to my level which is a branch level of the Normandy Veterans? What is the drill?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We are launching what we are proposing to do today. Thereafter the information will be disseminated as speedily and as comprehensively as possible. The arrangements are under constant examination. Lord Cranbourne and Lord Bramall are both part of the arranging committee and I think I can give you an assurance that as soon as we have more detailed information we will make sure that that is very widely disseminated. We do so essentially for two reasons: firstly – to pick up the point that Robert Cranbourne made a moment or so ago in respect of widows – they made a very great sacrifice indeed and we wish to make sure they are fully involved but secondly – to revert to the point that I made earlier – we do intend that this should be a truly national celebration and commemoration of what happened. That war was the largest war that the world has ever seen. We will never again see a war of that sort fought again. At the moment, fifty years on, very large numbers of the people who fought in that war, who helped win that war and the wives and widows of the people who fought and helped win the war will wish to take part in those commemorations. After 75 years, there will obviously be less; after 100 years none so this is the great occasion when we can both express our thanks and commemorate what was achieved and if it had not been achieved I very much doubt that any of us would have been here today so please have no doubt that we will do all we can to disseminate the information and make sure that there is the widest possible participation in the commemorative events between the 4th and 6th June.

    QUESTION:

    Is there any possibility of cash assistance for the areas of the country, particularly Portsmouth, who have to meet the cost of the commemorations?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    A large amount of the costs of the commemorations are actually being met centrally. I am not sure what costs will be borne by Portsmouth but some parts of the country will add to the celebrations with their own commemorative arrangements. That will be true not just in Portsmouth but is already evidently going to be true in places right up and down the United Kingdom and those costs I anticipate they will meet themselves.

    QUESTION (FINANCIAL TIMES):

    Can I ask what figure the Government is contributing to the commemorative events this year?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    The overwhelming costs will fall upon the Government. It will be a figure of some millions, precisely how many millions it is almost impossible to tell. I don’t suppose it is going to be a huge and outrageous sum but it will certainly be a sum in the low figures of millions and it may rise a little but this is a unique event. Certainly it will be in the millions and it will be contributed by the Government.